August 16, 2009

Yesterday Paul Krugman reminded us that preferring Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton because you wanted to avoid the Clinton psychodrama of the 90s was always a vain hope. Back in early 2008 he wrote, "Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false." Ezra Klein, chatting online about town hall hysteria, added, "This is how the conservative movement organizes against major pieces of liberal legislation. It's not about a particular moment or leader."

This is unquestionably true, but I'd just like to add one thing. If Hillary Clinton had won last year's Democratic primary and gone on to become president, and then this year's town hall meeting had turned into insane gatherings of lunatics yelling about death panels, every single pundit in Washington — Every. Single. One. — would be blaming it on her. Their unanimous take would be: Democrats knew that she was a divisive figure and chose to put her in the White House anyway. It's hardly any wonder that conservatives have gone nuts, is it?

That narrative, as we now know, would have been 100% wrong. But that would have been the narrative anyway. Caveat lector.

This is all very interesting, but I'd just like to add one thing. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama presented himself as someone who could bring us into a new era of transcendence over partisan differences. There would be Hope and Change. Obama believed — and a lot of us believed — that he was a calm, reassuring figure whom we could all love and trust.

Hillary would have known better. She'd been through it all before. She wouldn't have thought she could could ease you and cool you and cease the pain*. She wouldn't have blithely assumed Americans would quietly accept the vast, complex restructuring of health care that the congressional Democrats dumped on us. Obama naively thought that he was enough, and the more-liberal-than-America Democrats imagined they could get by on the magic of our admiration for the charming new President, who would look even lovelier as he amassed glittering accomplishments. Wouldn't he be wonderful? Wouldn't America be wonderful to have elected such a fine man President?

He and they got all puffed up. I don't think Hillary would have let that happen. He was Hope. She was Experience. Experience would have been different.

"Ann, any embarrassment yet over throwing your lot earlier this week with the kooks screaming "death panels" given that even many Republicans are now disavowing such silliness? Ann, have you thought about how low you are willing to go to keep your share of the hillbillies?"

"Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false."

Whereas Republicans are treated with the utmost expect, given the benefit of the doubt, and see their scandals swept under the rug.

Okay, either Krugman or I live on Mars, and I am not sure which.

L.E., since the kooks were vindicated, why in the heck would she be embarrassed? I suppose you and Krugman occupy the same planet.

Ann, have you thought about how low you are willing to go to keep your share of the hillbillies?"

Since she's evidently keeping you, (whether she wants to or not,) you obviously include yourself among the "hillbillies".

Either way, the orc wing of the conservative movement would have gotten riled up about health care reform, so it's kind of a wash. Obama may have underestimated how vile many of his political enemies are, while Hillary wouldn't have made that mistake, but that wouldn't have made a difference with regard to how the teabaggers would have conducted themselves in this debate, which is one of the points Drum is making. But, in Obama's case, hopefully it's a matter of live and learn.

Either way, the orc wing of the conservative movement would have gotten riled up about health care reform, so it's kind of a wash.

Funny how you pretend there isn't an "orc wing" of the liberal movement. Where is Codepink these days protesting Obama's Afghanistan quagmire? Oh yeah right, they really aren't anti-war, just anti-Bush.

And of course, all the vileness is on the "orc wing," because ONLY the "orc wing" has vileness--because if you oppose a power grab of another national industry, you're (a) the "orc wing" and (b) a vile opponent.

No one could simply be just, you know, opposed to this -- it must involve villany.

Love the black/white imagery. It's not thinking, however, in case you're confused.

L.E., since the kooks were vindicated, why in the heck would she be embarrassed? I suppose you and Krugman occupy the same planet.

Vindication generally refers to people being proven factually right in the end. No such thing has happened here. Political victory does not equal vindication, as there are no shortage of examples in which liars win politically. No doubt, it was a short-term win for the anti-reform people on that particular issue. However, it isn't the whole ball of wax, and the Democrats made the tactical decision to take a side issue off the table. Whether that was a good move in the long run or a move that only emboldened the other side remains to be seen.

Is it even possible for the left to submit any argument for debate without making it a Manichean struggle between the forces of light and darkness? The left likes to claim that they are the champions of the poor and the friendless, but the uninsured in America are not the most marginal of our citizens. Government programs already cover the elderly, the very poor, and children. The uninsured contingent comprises those too feckless to even apply for Medicaid, the undocumented, and those who choose to gamble on their continued good health. You can argue that these people should be enjoined to enter the insurance pool, but, my goodness, this is not the defining moral choice of our time......The defining moral choice of our era is whether you continue to define moral quibbles as Manichean struggles and draw horns upon your opponents or whether you gather behind the bright banner I here unfurl and cast Paul Krugman back into the dark pit from he arose.

Well, yeah, many of the conservatives don't want to see radical change implemented without some thought and purpose. They are, after all, conservatives.

"Health Care" might be broken, and might not. But lying off the bat ("47 MILLION UNINSURED! FIX IT SO THEY GET FREE HEALTH CARE! DOCTORS RIP OUT TONSILS TO MAKE $50K!") is a strange way to start a rational discussion.

WV: stran, as in "Libruls stran at the gnats of 'death panels' and swallow the camel of losing their freedoms."

William - I suspect the "swing voters" are getting tired of the likes of Krugman crying "racist" whenever anyone disagrees with Saint Barack. Like the boy who cried wolf, nobody is paying attention to that canard anymore. In fact every time a prominent leftie uses the racism card, they cost the Democrat party another percentage point. I say let them continue with it, by Nov 2010 the GOP will be back in power.

Reality is so depressing, especially when there are still some people out there who refuse to love the one you love.

Some of you need to remember: he's your president, not your savior, and he's entirely capable of making mistakes, screwing up, and being hubristic. You need to call him on it.

For some reason, attacking Teh One™ is seen as attacking the Most Precious & Holy Thing, but really, he's no more than any other man elected to office on the dubious hopes and dreams of people who wish consequences weren't tied to actions.

Irish6573 I'm a Fan of Irish6573 permalinkIf a strong public option is dropped, it will show that President Obama has neither the intestinal fortitude nor the testicular density to lead the country in the new direction promised during the campaign. It should not be too much a surprise, however, since the public option was never his focus, mandating health care always has been, which is just a payday for the insurance companies and not health care reform at all.

And why wouldn't he? He has been taught from birth that Americans, "they," are dopy, bigoted, dumb. He doesn't actually know any average folks. He went to elite schools where all his classmates were taught the same thing.

I think he is surprised that he is not enough. But he will also never stop to consolidate his power. Once the polity is in disarray, per Alinsky, they will welcome his "compromise."

Beware Plan B, the co-op option. It's the spawning of another monster like Freddie or Fannie.

Two points: if lefties talking to lefties want to continue the fantasy that the people turning out at the town hall meetings are a mirror image of the lefty rent-a-crowd, well, they have every right to do so. But the fact is that righties, even if they wanted to assemble rent-a-crowds all over the country, couldn't do it. The people righties make their pitch to are extremely reluctant to go into activist mode, that's why the conservative message appeals to them in the first place. Their deepest desire is to live and let live, to be left alone. The town hall "crazies" are for the most part apoliticals who reluctantly have been pushed into activism by what they see as a direct threat to their very lives.

Secondly, would Hillary be all that different in her approach than Barry? Doubtful. Don't forget that they both are hard left children of Alinsky, fervently so. The only difference were Hillary president would have been the modifying affect of Bill's counsel. Not because he's any less of a statist than she is; only that Bill is an inveterate poll watcher who would have counseled temporary moderation till the storm blew over.

If this scenario were true, in Obama's defense there is nothing in his experience to have informed him otherwise. It cannot be said too much, this is what you get when you elect an individual with no actual record to speak of on anything resembling a flimsy thread of hope.

There are two ifs here, the second less plausible than the first. Clinton would probably have lost to McCain so we'd be having an entirely different discussion, chiefly what is that old coot doing to get us out of this never-ending Republican depression, because that's how the economy would be characterized, and how much he bores us to death with his monotone platitudes and droning bromides.

But the point of this if, if, then alternate history is taken, yes we'd be blaming it all on Clinton.

^^^ I've seen some pretty lame attempts at threadjacks on this site but this 'loon' up there seems to never cease. One day, one day I'm going to read a remark here by a gen-you-wine liberal that isn't written as if viewed through the lens of the DNC and my head will explode.

No, 2+2=4 is unquestionably true. Anytime anyone outside of mathematics says "unquestionably true," start questioning. As you pass through science on to politics you will find the particular assertion at hand to be more and more questionable. I question my own experimental results and always will. I strongly suspect they (and my interpretation of them) are correct, but I don't accept even my own work unquestionably.

"Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals"

McCain didn't even make it to the WH and look at the lies the supposed paper of record told about him.

"the orc wing of the conservative movement would have gotten riled up about health care reform"

The orc wing of any movement gets riled up about anything the other side does. It's the ent wing that is rising up against health care "reform." Any ent knows you can "reform" a forest into a toxic waste site (though I'll grant you the analogy might be a little extreme; just consider it a little orc mischief on my part).

In a thread of Ann's from a couple of weeks ago titled "I'm sitting here at the Steam and Steel Cafe..." I posted the following

"BTW, I just exchanged some e-mails with a friend who works on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C.She reports that Dem Members are being encouraged to have these crazy town hall meetings. Internal polling is showing that the loony behavior of the rabid anti-health care reform people is not playing well on local TV. Also, as she explained, Dems already have the votes. The compromise will come from within the Dem Caucus. The problem has never been about pissing off the right but instead pissing off the single payer left. These town hall scenes have helped to shore up the Dem left and hopefully will make a compromise among center Dems and the left wing of the party more palatable.So, hopefully right wing crazies will continue to go to these town hall events..."

Ann, completely missing the point responded

"As for the Dems loving this opposition... there's a Monty Python clip that's always dredged up for such things. I'm not going to waste my time getting the link."

A few others did get the point and I followed up with

"I don't know how the most recent town halls have played on local TV. The point I got from my friend's e-mails is that the shouting from over the top opposition is not playing well with independent voters.But the bigger point, that unsurprisingly flew right over Althouse's head, is that the Dems have the votes. The Republicans, much less the right wing, do not matter. The deal is going to be brokered within the Dem caucus. The biggest concern has been with liberal Dems holding out. The last couple of weeks of town halls has made it easier to bring the Progressive Caucus around. (At least that is what I think she meant.) Also, she wrote that what everyone now agrees to, both left and center Dems, is that the only unacceptable outcome is the bill not passing at all. She also wrote that the final bill will surely not look like the current one that is being bandied about."

Alex, also don't forget to include the protocol header http:// or https:// when you do so; otherwise the web page (blogger, anyway) thinks the link goes to a page on the current site (althouse.blogspot.com).

The projection on the left is just stunning. It still flabbergasts me after all these years of watching them accuse the right of everything that they are guilty of times ten.

The orc wing.....jesus give me a break. Senior citizens going out to protest a massive 1000 page bill that no congress critter nor the President has read, which will impact their health and well being in the most immediate fashion.

The good thing is the scales are falling off the eyes of the average joe who is not a political junkie but is finally waking up to the fact that the left in this country is hell bent on destroying our way of life and our very freedoms that for too long have been taken for granted while the parasites have been gnawing at the edges.

Hillary would be no better because she is cut from the same cloth. A malignant narcissist looking for unlimited power. The only place these criminals can acquire that much power is by usurping it from the citizenry, and they in there megalomaniacal delusion, surrounded by a sycophantic and lying press corp, were bound to miscalculate and overreach.

The tree of liberty must be nourished with the blood of tyrants and traitors. I think that time is approaching.

Just to pile on a bit, I haven't been to a protest demonstration since I was a college student demonstrating for civil rights back in the 1960's, and I haven't been politically active since circa 1984, when my son was born.

Now my kids are grown up and I have free time once more.

And you, L. E., you, somefeller, the rest of the trolls who post here, and folks like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and that idiot Reid have given me some motivation.

By next month it will be clear that Palin's "Death Panels" was the "jump the shark" moment in this debate. It unified the left behind President Obama and placed Republican officeholders (conveniently, Palin is not one of them anymore) who think of themselves as serious people in the position of either defending a falsehood or having to distance themselves from Palin and company. Many of them chose separation this weekend.

A deal will be brokered next month with a bill that does "not look like the current one" and President Obama will claim a moderate win for health care insurance reform. For Dems and the country it will still be a win.

I suspect the right wing will be seething that Republican officeholders in Washington stiffed armed Sarah Palin and her whooper.

The tree of liberty must be nourished with the blood of tyrants and traitors. I think that time is approaching.

Always nice to hear from the Deliverance Wing of the Republican Party from time to time. This was Timothy McVeighs favorite quote, I hope you're not getting any funny ideas from terrorists like his him.

By next month leftists still won't understand that Palin was referring to the rationing schemes advocated by Dr. Emanuel, and they will continue to ignore such liberals as Kaus, who was surprised by how close Obama came to advocating such panels back in April.

Hillary wouldn't have tried it. She'd probably still be talking about economic recovery and possibly even saying that we should be certain that what we do actually helps. I can hope she wouldn't have been an idiot about Zelaya or gone with the "kinder gentler" ROE in Afghanistan that seems to have accompanied a significant up-tic in coalition casualties.

Drum and Krugman complaining about the media is a bit rich.

The media has been "dutifully giving credence" to charges that the Tea Party movement is some sort of astro-turf, apparently because they couldn't imagine that anyone could actually *honestly* not like Barack Obama.

This is hardly a new thing. Neither are the accusations of racism from "liberals" in response to policy disagreements a new thing. This has been going on for decades. There is unequivocal "truth" and then there are all the the excuses people come up with to cover their racism because not *recognizing* the truth, the rightness, of whatever "truth" is obvious to liberals is not possible.

You know, I can at least believe that most of those supporting the health care reform bills honestly think they are the way to go, that government health care is a proven good thing that all the kinks have been worked out of in other countries. I can believe and assume that their hearts are actually "in the right place."

All I'd like in return is to be allowed to believe different things about politics and the economy and what is necessary for liberty and freedom without being told that there is an "unequivocal" truth and that I'm just a racist.

And many *many* of us always knew that Obama was not going to usher in a new age of unity and cooperation. We knew and warned even before his election that his version of bringing us all together would be "agree with us or shut up."

We didn't think he'd ever actually SAY that... but he has.

And yet... according to Drum and Krugman who apparently have no possible concept that anyone could honestly think that Obama has bad ideas can't even imagine that anyone would view "agree or shut up" as anything other than unifying.

So how could Hillary have made health care reform palatable to the conservatives who are fighting any change, tooth and nail?

The only change acceptable to conservatives is none whatsoever:

That is a flat out lie and you know it.

There have been many counter proposals for health care reform over the years proposed by conservative. Chief among them is Tort Reform. Also expanding portability of insurance when an employee leaves a job or changes employers. Also allowing the ability to purchase insurance across state lines. There are many more.....all of which have been shot down by the socialists in our government who don't really want 'reform'. They want a government take over of our health care.

You also need to make a distinction between health care and health insurance. They are NOT the same things.

If you continue to tell lies, no one is going to take you seriously when you have a legitimate point to make.

Sniff... no one would be mean to them if they cooperated or just got out of the way.

That's why it is soooo different from the vile things those orc teabaggers do when they say vile unequivocally false things like "Obama can't promise people will be able to keep their private health insurance" or "this will be budget neutral" or "Obama can't keep his promise of no tax hikes to pay for this."

Paul wrote "A famous man who you probably have no clue about said that".

Paul he did not say that about a duly elected government of the United States. Why don't you stop engaging in such kooky right wing fantasy mongering, get off your lazy butt and go elect a President and Congress that agrees with you?

L.E. Lee you don't know what you are talking about. Of course that's a given. Tyrants are tyrants. Traitors are traitors. Our elected officials are sworn to uphold the constitution. When they break that oath and they become enemies of the people. Period. Complicit worms and snakes like yourself deserve whatever you get. Too bad.

You snowed the people with your hope and change bullshit but upon delivering nothing but the promise of more pain and new chains you can expect to get your ass handed to you in the next election.

The suggestions made by that Whole Foods guy would be acceptable reforms.

But not to those who prefer single payer... the worst possible thing that could happen is for things to get *better*. If they get *better* there will be no traction for the major changes that would bring the US into compliance with the unmitigated "good" of universal government health care.

We can't get reforms like tort reform, portability, etc. because people might be *satisfied* and no longer be open to a radical government take over.

Because we all know that duly elected governments never ever devolve into tyranny.

Right.

Our founders knew and understood the true nature of man and government, that is why we have the 2nd Amendment. It is the last recourse of the people. A final guarantee, if you will, that "duly elected government" is not allowed to become tyrannical and oppressive in nature.

I'm okay with that concept because I understand that most people prefer stability over instability, so it will take extreme circumstances to trigger armed revolt, as it should.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

John Lynch wrote"I love that it's OK to make fun of poor people as long as they're white."

Now, John I am not making fun of poor white people. I am making fun of people who take Sarah Palin seriously and post stuff like "The tree of liberty must be nourished with the blood of tyrants and traitors. I think that time is approaching." whenever the U.S. moves ever so slightly to the left.

Good Grief! Leave it to a genius like Krugman to blame nutty right wingers and the media for the inability of democrats to party line vote in any damn thing they want. Besides being absolutely wrong it doesn't make any sense.

Good lord, Lee, haven't you gotten enough mileage out of your stupid "hillbillies" gag yet? It wasn't even funny the first time, but weeks later you're still posting 20 comments a day here that say "You're all a bunch of stupid hillbillies!" or some variation thereof.

People like L.E Lee and garage the moron are so used to the ring in their nose and Obama's dick in their ass that people who just want to be left alone to manage their own lives and make their own decisions are "rightwing fringe kooks".

You fellows are pathetic little men who prefer the security of serfdom to the responsibility of liberty and are beneath contempt.

That's your choice and your failing, however if you try to force your nightmare on free amd strong men you will rue the day.

"So how could Hillary have made health care reform palatable to the conservatives who are fighting any change, tooth and nail?

The only change acceptable to conservatives is none whatsoever:"

I seem to recall a certain business man writing an op-ed making proposals. The liberal response? Boycott Whole Foods for what the CEO wrote.

It is really quite tiresome to hear the left ignore all legitimate opposition and then bemoan how there is a lack of rational discourse. It is the left that is seeking out to debate the mob, elevating politics and show over intelligent policy outcomes.

It is really quite tiresome to hear the left ignore all legitimate opposition and then bemoan how there is a lack of rational discourse. It is the left that is seeking out to debate the mob, elevating politics and show over intelligent policy outcomes.

If you honestly debate, you might lose the argument. The left can't risk that - so they engage in Stalinist tactics. It's all about winning, not losing pretty. That's something the GOP has GOT to learn fast. Play as dirty as the Democrats. Lie, cheat, steal, whatever!

Dude, come off it. The Left couldn't be more unified behind Obama if he told them to all think warm fuzzy thoughts to make the haters go away. He is the biggest Leftist to occupy the White House, ever. Millions of lefties would give a kidney if they thought it meant they could push through ANYTHING this man proposes.

Hillary Clinton, had she been elected President, would be saddled with the same bunch of chickenshits in Congress; a majority that is afraid to act like a majority, led by a megalomaniac Speaker beholden to her party's most radical members.

Why not just call for the vote on HR3200? The Dems have the majority, Obama will sign it. Just do it.

Oh wait, maybe there's that thing about wanting to be re-elected. That's a problem.

"If you honestly debate, you might lose the argument. The left can't risk that - so they engage in Stalinist tactics. It's all about winning, not losing pretty. That's something the GOP has GOT to learn fast. Play as dirty as the Democrats. Lie, cheat, steal, whatever!"

Oh, thats absolutely hilarious. So its only the Republicans making principled debates while the Democrats resort to 'stalinist tactics'? Nazi comparisons from Rush Limbaugh, Palin's 'death panels', Mark Levin saying Obama is 'literally at war with the American people', politicians being shouted down by protestors, Michelle Bachmann...yeah sounds like the kind of moral highground any group would want. There is plenty of bullshit out there. It is astoundingly ignorant to say it is all coming from the Democrats.

@Minzo, cut the crap. What is there in HR 3200 that makes it worth passing? How will it affect those of us who already have coverage? If you don't agree with HR 3200, then which alternative bills now before committees in the House and Senate do you prefer and why?

You can't answer any of these questions because you are ignorant of the contents of these bills and too lazy to try to learn.

Oh no. L.E. Lee is beating the drum of hillbilly-ism again. Whatever shall we do. L.E. what is like to be a shallow thinking, one dimensional leftist thinker? Oh, I know, you've simply joined the rest of your self-same leftist cadre. You know what's funny about idiots like you? You see the truth plainly in front of your face and then you enact the willful ignorance your side loves to partake in and then rehash it as a screed against conservatism. When will you realize that your vain attempt at moral relativism is a failure. If you are so impassioned about having your little black jesus come to the rescue of 47 million alleged uninsured, then why are all the proposals on the table blanketing every citizen and illegal alien in the US with a system that we know will now work? Why aren't you proposing, because frankly your are to stupid to do it or to stupid not to do it, to insure only the 47 million alleged uninsured instead with their own little program that is sandboxed away from all of us who don't want it to bleed into our lives. Let those 47 million alleged uninsured show up and let us see how the government deals with it as an indicator of how it will resonate to the rest of the populace.

It's already obvious how that will happen. Like Cash for Clunkers, it will be bankrupt within a year or so and then a crisis of biblical proportions will erupt to refund it and like cash for clunkers it will go through because it will equate to votes and become a new entitlement like Cash for Clunkers has become. I know what you are asking for and that is why you and people like you are the real un-Americans. If I could expel you from this country and strip you of that birthright I would. You don't deserve it, you piece of leftist filth.

Big Mike says: And you, L. E., you, somefeller, the rest of the trolls who post here, and folks like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and that idiot Reid have given me some motivation. You think you've got a political problem now? Wait.

It's only a political problem if you are something other than a conservative who already was against Obama. A highly-incensed protestor who votes doesn't have any more votes than a person who isn't all riled up about something or other. But, if you want to go protest, be my guest. Everyone needs a hobby.

He also says: @somefeller, your comments yesterday put you among the limousine liberals. Your snarky remarks today put you among the left-wing lunatic fringe of the Democrat party.

Whatever. I basically pointed out that (i) politicians often lie and win, so when one sees that happen, that isn't an example of vindication; (ii) both Obama and Hillary would get vilified by the type of people who get into screaming frenzies at public meetings, so that fact is a wash and (iii) the big prize is whether some sort of comprehensive health care reform gets through, not some individual details. As far as that goes, I expect there will be a bill signed by the end of the year. And whether or not it includes a public option (defined as a government-backed/owned health insurance plan) vs. a co-op approach won't matter to most people outside the harder left. I'm personally agnostic regarding which approach is better, and don't rate it at the top of my list. I suspect the Venn Diagram of people who think that way is pretty big, actually.

@L. E., back in the 1960's when I was demonstrating for civil rights I was mightily offended when Southerners referred to grown Black men with the term "boy." I used to think, here's this adult who holds a job, maybe raising a family, maybe was drafted and served in uniform, and you call him "boy." It was extremely offensive, and it was meant to be offensive.

But L. E., you, personally, really do think like a child, don't you? If someone doesn't agree with you all you can do is call names, like a toddler on a playground. Sad. Very, very sad.

If you've been to college, you surely didn't learn anything about discourse, did you?

And despite my income I perceive myself as having much more in common with working class folks than I do with limousine liberals. So I embrace being called "hillbilly."

"So how could Hillary have made health care reform palatable to the conservatives who are fighting any change, tooth and nail?"

Ann never suggested Hillary wouldn't have made it more palatable to the conservatives. Ann suggested that under Hillary it would have instead been understood that it was going to be a fight from second one, and the Democrats would have organized ahead of time to fight the fight instead of haplessly depending on Obama's charisma and then playing catch-up.

Assuming, of course, she was silly enough to start fighting a war of choice (health care) while still mired in fighting a war of necessity (the economy). (Heck, we've even had Obama trying to link health care to the current recession . . . a link quite as tenuous as any between Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center attack.)

L. E. Lee --

"I don't know how the most recent town halls have played on local TV. The point I got from my friend's e-mails is that the shouting from over the top opposition is not playing well with independent voters."

A statement that turns out to be completely, 100% false. Independent voters have been polled, and they've said the protests have turned them against the plan. Now a clear majority of Americans polled oppose it.

And of course the Democrats have the votes. Duh. They have a majority. The only question is, how many Blue Dogs are willing to lose their seats in the name of passing a health care bill?

"Paul he did not say that about a duly elected government of the United States."

Your ignorance is showing. He actually did. The context of the quote was Shay's Rebellion, and the full quote is:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

(iii) the big prize is whether some sort of comprehensive health care reform gets through, not some individual details.

And that's precisely the point where you and I part company. I, and lots of others like me, care about what's in the bill. If it's a bad bill then it shouldn't be passed. Is that too much for you to grasp?

Anyway, there he was reassuring the crowd that provision for mandatory “end-of-life counseling” has “gotten spun into this idea of ‘death panels.’ I am not in favor of that.” Well, that’s good to know. So good that a grateful audience applauded the president’s pledge not to kill them.

If you were an opponent of the Democrats in general and Obama in particular to begin with, who cares? You aren't a part of the target audience. And I didn't say I didn't care what was in the bill, I merely said that (i) the end-of-life provisions of the bill weren't central to its passage and (ii) I don't care that much about the public option vs. a non-profit insurance co-op, because thus far I haven't seen strong evidence to lead me to believe one is that much better than the other. With regard to item (ii) either way sounds like a good path to improve the health insurance situation. And in any case, they are both examples of something Republicans failed to do during the time they had the White House and Congress - a serious attempt at improving the health insurance system in the US.

"Minzo, cut the crap. What is there in HR 3200 that makes it worth passing? How will it affect those of us who already have coverage? If you don't agree with HR 3200, then which alternative bills now before committees in the House and Senate do you prefer and why?

You can't answer any of these questions because you are ignorant of the contents of these bills and too lazy to try to learn."

Its funny Big Mike that- like many others in this thread- you are attacking Lee for being abusive and yet you are being the same thing yourself. I notice that Lee using the word 'Hilibillies' has deeply offended you, but people calling him leftist filth and wishing they could strip him of his birthright etc has left you unpertubed. Anyway I'll leave that for now.For the record, my post was not a defence of Obama's healthcare reform proposals. I was addressing a very specific point- posters here who accuse democrats of being unwilling to debate, of using 'stalinist tactics', ad hominem ettacks, misinformation..etc I was pointing out that such tactics are not the sole preserve of the left as many are suggesting and are also being enthusiastically practiced by the right. As such, taking the moral high ground is laughable.

Another leftist half-wit who cannot distinguish between offense and defense.

Live by Alinsky tactics die by Alinsky tactics.

We would be happy to be left alone to live our lives in peace, on our own terms, with the liberties guaranteed us by the founding documents and our property rights intact. But you fascist leftwing collectivist pricks have been undermining our liberties and confiscating our property with a relentless enthusiasm for decades. You are the reason for the strife and coming conflict in this country because you cannot let people be. You are compelled to try and stuff your Marxist agenda down our throats and you scream like little girls when we fight back.

You, like the Japanese, have awakened a sleeping giant. May you suffer the same fate.

What is humorous is that I was one of the few people who posted some original analysis to this thread concerning this debate. Oh well. I am happy to try again.

My gut feeling is that I don't think President Obama ever believed in a public option much less a single payer system. But, this position is heavily supported among Democratic activist, especially older liberals. (Remember, President Obama was not interested in an outright nationalization of the banking system.) Because of the wild reaction from many Republicans he can now make the focus on the political and operationally doable. Insurance companies will have competition from newly created entities. Also, philosophically the universal right in this country to health care will have been instituted. Those are big wins. The second one is maybe even transformational.

Odd that Krugman would omit to mention the big substantive difference between Clinton and Obama: she favored individual mandates, he claimed to oppose them. Krugman had rather a lot to say about it at the time.

BTW, for various reason I have not supported single payer. I was willing to consider the public option. Being a small business person and capitalist I believe that the more we can use market forces to reach our goals the better. (I am in complete agreement with Adam Smith unlike most conservatives who spout off about him and have never actually studied him.)

"Spare me. You and yours picked this fight so don't stand there sniveling when you get return fire."

Thats an odd justification there-'Your side have made me angry so I reserve the right to attack you all.' Assuming this 'fight' is healthcare reform, I havent even stated my opinion about it on this thread, but yes lets just toss everyone who doesn't agree with you into a single group and demonize them.

"No, if you are Paul you threaten nukes. Keep the laughs coming Paul."

You're beyond stupid aren't you?

Defeat at the ballot box is all that's necessary, but it will require the same hardball tactics that the left uses without batting and eye, but cry like the little vagina men they are when they get a taste of their own medicine.

"Thats an odd justification there-'Your side have made me angry so I reserve the right to attack you all.' Assuming this 'fight' is healthcare reform, I havent even stated my opinion about it on this thread, but yes lets just toss everyone who doesn't agree with you into a single group and demonize them."

Try to pay attention. I'll repeat what I said in a no doubt futile effort to penetrate your colossal obtuseness.

"But you fascist leftwing collectivist pricks have been undermining our liberties and confiscating our property with a relentless enthusiasm for decades."

Government rationed healthcare is just the last straw. I don't give a fig what your position is. You are obviously a creature of the left, and thus a collectivist and the enemy of free peoples everywhere.

That is the line in the sand.

I'm well aware that you are most likely just a useful idiot and simply don't know any better, but you still need to be defeated and marginalized because you add weight to the forces determined to remake this nation into another failed collectivist shithole.

Vagina man is a phrase my wife coined after dealing with the leftoid castrati she would invariably encounter at Whole Foods and other places rife with liberals apparently born with male genitalia but you'd never guess by their behavior.

It's a perfect term for gutless, juvenile, and undeveloped males like yourself.

Defeat at the ballot box is all that's necessary, but it will require the same hardball tactics that the left uses without batting and eye, but cry like the little vagina men they are when they get a taste of their own medicine..

Right, because we all know about the blood of incumbents that gets spilled from elections in this country. You love the quote that was written on Timothy McVeigh's shirt when he was arrested, but you're just too chickenshit to say what you really want to say. Vagina man indeed.

Vagina man is a phrase my wife coined after dealing with the leftoid castrati she would invariably encounter at Whole Foods and other places rife with liberals apparently born with male genitalia but you'd never guess by their behavior.

It's a perfect term for gutless, juvenile, and undeveloped males like yourself.

Very good. Your wife sounds like a perceptive and smart woman. I also liken them to castratos.

The kind of person who talks and talks but when there is a real crisis, whines and whines...flapping their hands and waiting for other people, someone else....anyone else to step up and take care of problems.

word verification = notontb not on television, any real coverge of the news.

The kind of person who talks and talks but when there is a real crisis, whines and whines...flapping their hands and waiting for other people, someone else....anyone else to step up and take care of problems..

Methadras wrote "If I could expel you from this country and strip you of that birthright I would."

How about a concentration camp Methadras? would that also work for you?

Spoken like a true fear monger. Typical of your leftist ilk, making illogical conclusions from historical pretexts where none exist in this country today or have ever existed. I want to see your ideology expelled. It has no place in a right thinking country. Your ideology has no value and it is devoid of decency. It seeks the state as it's preeminent God while the chattle is left to pray at it's altar. Your it's acolyte and therefore it's advocate. You are the vessel for that ideology, you are as corrupt as it is and to see that ideology expelled from the body politic and from the human consciousness would be a good thing.

Yesterday Paul Krugman reminded us that preferring Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton because you wanted to avoid the Clinton psychodrama of the 90s was always a vain hope. Back in early 2008 he wrote, "Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false."

The battle for socialized government health insurance has now been officially conceded. Krugman is now laying the ground work for the left's usual excuse for losing a policy argument - we could not be heard over the great rightwing conspiracy noise machine.

Good heavens, has it ever occurred to folks on the left that they lose arguments in favor of socialism because a heavy majority of the country thinks socialism is a proven failure?

What is humorous is that I was one of the few people who posted some original analysis to this thread concerning this debate. Oh well. I am happy to try again.

My gut feeling is that I don't think President Obama ever believed in a public option much less a single payer system.

And that is why your ideology is gutless. As a senator he said he was in favor of a public option. The legislation he is favoring in all the house bills are public options, so your opinion means dick.

(Remember, President Obama was not interested in an outright nationalization of the banking system.) Because of the wild reaction from many Republicans he can now make the focus on the political and operationally doable. Insurance companies will have competition from newly created entities. Also, philosophically the universal right in this country to health care will have been instituted. Those are big wins. The second one is maybe even transformational.

And now we get to see the enlightened rot that infuses your mental capacities. 1) Health care is not a universal right outside of your leftist utopian ideology. 2) calling a new entitlement a win or even transformational is why you and your sub-human ideology aren't worth the toilet paper Titus wipes his ass with after a good pinch.

How does an insurance company or any company for that matter compete with the government that can price freeze or absorb all the costs associated with it's services against a fully privately funded company? Is there some magic dust that you inhale to give you this perception or is are you looking beyond even your urbane marxist/Bolshevist beliefs?

Afraid they haven't fallen yet? Between seeing the weepy, sandy vagina syndrome played out between you and Garage. It's no wonder that liberal/leftist faux men everywhere haven't asked for a public option so they can finally fulfill their dreams of gender reorientation with brand new genitalia.

WV = wings. Something that LE, garage, and the rest of leftist castrati Althouse Stooges will be reading on the box for their feminine hygiene.

Hey Garage you dumb fuck I don't know what that coward Timothy McVeigh had on his shirt and I could care less.

The bottom line is the words that you NEVER hear lefties use are liberty and freedom. You pricks are so busy trying to cram your poisonous ideology down the public's craw that you are oblivious to what happens when you try and take a free man's liberty and property. Weak little spineless vagina men like you will crumble into cinders when you finally provoke the reaction you are hell bent on conjuring.

There have been many counter proposals for health care reform over the years proposed by conservative. Chief among them is Tort Reform.

Tort reform is in no way health care reform. Tort reform merely shields doctors from the consequences of their choice not to live up to the standard of care. I thought accepting the consequences of one's acts was a cornerstone tenet of conservatism.

Free marketeers would surely agree that a rational actor would avoid behaviors that cost him money.

Further, who should compensate patients for the harm doctors do to them out of negligence? Should the government bail out the negligent doctors? Or should patients just suck it up and move on?

Consider that the most common tort reform, limiting damages for pain and suffering, disproportionately injures young people who have their entire lives to live with their physician-induced injuries.

Also expanding portability of insurance when an employee leaves a job or changes employers. Also allowing the ability to purchase insurance across state lines.

Employers offer health insurance to gain a competitive advantage over their peers. Only the nature of free enterprise keeps such competitors from co-ordinating benefits between them: they don't want their good people to leave.

But I do know many people whose insurance is portable between employers and jobs. They belong to unions, which require employers to contribute to union health and welfare funds. As long as you continue to ply your trade, your insurance continues, even if your employer goes out of business or merges. For some reason conservatives are blocking expansion of such portability.

Now, what law prohibits health insurance companies from operating in every state? Car insurance companies do. Home insurers do. I think the objection is practical: how an out-of-state insurer can charge less for health insurance than in-state insurers who are used to working with the local providers. Unless you're willing to commute to South Dakota for your care, I don't see how you can get it cheaper.

If you continue to tell lies, no one is going to take you seriously when you have a legitimate point to make.

dbq has advanced, in the name of health care reform, changes that either do not address the issue or actually will leave patients worse off than before, while simultaneously undermining bedrock free-market principles.

Consider that the most common tort reform, limiting damages for pain and suffering, disproportionately injures young people who have their entire lives to live with their physician-induced injuries.

That's so moronic only a former law student would come up with it. If a person is injured, they can sue for that injury idiot. Moreover, not being able collect on some mystical pain and suffering doesn't INJURE young people.

Seriously, only a lawyer would come up with the notion that a person not winning a big award or settlement is INJURED. Good fuck.

Let me be clear; I don't give a shit whether tort reform will save the health care system or even save a dime, it should be done because it's will reduce the number of lawyers who do nothing but leach off society and create fear amongst law abiding citizens and companies who must take honorous, and often expensive, preventive measures. The current legal system is more about enriching lawyers on all sides than in actually protecting citizens and in giving them their due.

fls: "Further, who should compensate patients for the harm doctors do to them out of negligence? Should the government bail out the negligent doctors? Or should patients just suck it up and move on?"

Oh, to live in a consequence free world.

You gonna sue the government when your government doctor makes a mistake or it takes too long to get an appointment?

Tort reform... it's not difficult. You know what? Shit happens. Any person that puts themselves in the care of human beings faces the *accepted* possibility of human error. It's a risk freely accepted. Don't like it? Don't go to the doctor.

Negligence should result in a large monetary award. It should have a cap on it and it should not be *possible* for juries to award damages when the doctor or hospital were not actually negligent but the jury feels bad for the impact on the patient's life. They all know that the doctor has insurance, so who is hurt? Huh? Who is hurt by giving a big reward to someone who won't ever get better?

"Have you joined the American Civil Liberties Union? Because Freedom Can't Protect Itself."

AHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a fucking STOOGE!!! Oh man someone comes along and just bitch slaps Garage right off the summit of Mt. Stoopid!! Way to go man! Besting Garage in the Beclowning Olympics is no mean feat!! You rawk dude!!!

Actually, Paul, you are the one that made the categorical statement that "the words that you NEVER hear lefties use are liberty and freedom", and FLS came up with a prime liberal group that uses those words on a regular basis. Looks like the only one getting beclowned here is you, which I suspect is a regular occurrence in your life, internet tough guy.

"And now that they can't get worked up when the White House is collecting email addresses and websites of those with dissenting opinions, the organization has become a near-total joke."

Yeah.

That's got to be the canary in the mine for the ACLU that makes it pretty darn clear that it really wasn't our imagination that it was politics and not freedom informing most of their agenda for a while now.

health benefits offered by morning walkThe secret of longevity for a major section of people who are ‘ octogenarians ‘ – That is People who are in their eighties would be morning walk which was done for decades. People have nowadays gradually started realizing the importance of morning walk in shaping the health of human body. But still there are umpteen number of people who do not unwind themselves from their mechanical lives. Technological advancements have made life more simpler in all respects but we humans must also pay the price for it if we do not allocate time in our hectic schedule for some physical work like walking or visiting Gym’s. Around fifteen years ago, TV remotes were rarely found in houses and hence we used to walk at least for changing channels. But now ? Sitting hours together in front of the idiot box, continuously feeding the stomach with snacks or sweets, leading to obesity. If you question a doctor on the health benefits offered by walking he would give you a long lecture. Let us see some of the benefits.1) It is a stress buster which instills a feeling of freshness to the body as well as mind.2) blood circulation is promoted, reducing greatly the chances of high blood pressure.3) Checks obesity by burning unnecessary calories of fat in the body.4) It makes the joints more strong and hence people would be less susceptible to Orthopedic troubles associated with old age.5) Chases away neck pain and back pains.6) If you go walk in a park surrounded by trees, you will inhale more fresh air, containing higher concentration of oxygen, thereby bringing down breathing problems too.7) Keeps sugar levels under control.http://nupek.com/health/health-benefits-offered-by-morning-walk/